Is My Wife "At Fault"?

[cellis001]

I live in Missouri. A few months ago, my wife was on her way to work on a single lane road, in the dark. As she turned into a sharp corner there was a hay bale in the road that had fallen off some farmer's truck. To avoid a head on collision with an oncoming tractor trailer and choosing not to steer into the ditch, she hit the hay bale (unable to stop in time) and then stopped without further incident, but it messed up the front of our van. We never discovered who had dropped the hay bale.

So we called USAA, they told us that it was a "no fault" accident, so we turned it in for repair. Now its five months later and they called us yesterday to say that they have ruled that my wife is "at fault" and of course the repercussions that follow.

I asked for them to provide explanation why:
1. The farmer was not available to subrogate (sp?) against him
2. My wife was determined to NOT be in control of her vehicle at the point she made contact with the hay bale

I'm struggling with how this is not a "no fault" accident. Is this any different if you're driving and you strike a deer? Or you're driving in a storm and suffer hail damage?

Thanks for anyone's help.

 

[FullAuto]

If you hit something that is not moving in the road, it is a collision claim. If the object is moving, it's a comp claim. Hit a deer, it's a comp claim. Hit a dead deer, it's a collision claim. It's all in how you word it. You should never hit something in the road. It should always happen that someone else hits it and knocks it into your car. Then it's a "missile" and a comp claim. You don't hit hail. Hail hits you.

 

[djs]

Hitting a stationary object with your car is pretty much always a collision claim. The hay bale is stationary.

Bottom line is your wife was probably driving to fast for the road at the time. Yeah, I know, she drives it every day, probably wasn't going that fast, etc. But if she was driving slower around that bend, she would have seen the bale of hay and had time to react differently, i.e., simply stop. Don't read to much into this, its just the way a third party would interpret it. We all drive fast on roads we know when there isn't other traffic.

Hitting a deer (or other animal) is viewed differently. Animals move when they see an oncoming car, usually in the absolute wrong direction. That bale of hay didn't go anywhere.

Dan

P.S. Oncoming tractor/trailer and single lane road don't make for a good mix either!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Failure to control vehicle to avoid collision, is a ticket, therefore at fault.

 

[YouGotMyMoney]

the woman is always at fault, dont believe the propoganda!

Genesis anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[senior-advisor-indiana]

After reading the title of this thread there was no need to read the posts because the answer is always no, your wife is not at fault.

 

[b61mack]

that is the difference of using, online vs agent. once you said the wrong thing, you can't take it back..

 

[Frank Stastny]

Just for the hell of it, there isn't any "proof" that the bale wasn't moving. It could have just fallen off of a farmers truck and still have been tumbling when your wife came upon it. That sounds logical to me.

I have been following a farmer hauling hay bales and observed one falling off of the wagon and tumble down the road.

 

[itstheinsurance.com]

If you hit something that is not moving in the road, it is a collision claim. If the object is moving, it's a comp claim. Hit a deer, it's a comp claim. Hit a dead deer, it's a collision claim. It's all in how you word it. You should never hit something in the road. It should always happen that someone else hits it and knocks it into your car. Then it's a "missile" and a comp claim. You don't hit hail. Hail hits you.

Object moving does not automatically make it a comp claim. At least not in the states I've covered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I live in Missouri. A few months ago, my wife was on her way to work on a single lane road, in the dark. As she turned into a sharp corner there was a hay bale in the road that had fallen off some farmer's truck. To avoid a head on collision with an oncoming tractor trailer and choosing not to steer into the ditch, she hit the hay bale (unable to stop in time) and then stopped without further incident, but it messed up the front of our van. We never discovered who had dropped the hay bale.

So we called USAA, they told us that it was a "no fault" accident, so we turned it in for repair. Now its five months later and they called us yesterday to say that they have ruled that my wife is "at fault" and of course the repercussions that follow.

I asked for them to provide explanation why:
1. The farmer was not available to subrogate (sp?) against him
2. My wife was determined to NOT be in control of her vehicle at the point she made contact with the hay bale

I'm struggling with how this is not a "no fault" accident. Is this any different if you're driving and you strike a deer? Or you're driving in a storm and suffer hail damage?

Thanks for anyone's help.

I would have placed her at fault. This is an object on the road and though it is a road hazard she has the duty to maintain proper speed for incidents like this. It doesn't always fly with customers but that's how it is.

 

[Guest]

isnt it always the wifes fault?